Sent: 27 January 2011 18:44
To: ###########
Subject: Defamation – notobikeparkingtax.com
Dear #########
My name is Peter Large. I am employed as Head of Legal and Democratic Services by Westminster City Council, but I am writing to you in my personal capacity. I have been given your email address, as I understand it with your permission, by ####-# at xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx. I had understood from an internet search that xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx hosted the website I refer to above. ####-# has informed me that the site is hosted on a server which your company leases from him in order to provide your own webhosting services. He states that he provides only the bare utilities, while you manage the machine and are responsible for it’s content.
As I say, I write concerning the website notobikeparkingtax.com. The website is run by Mr Warren Djanogly and/or an unincorporated association known as the No to Bike Parking Tax campaign, who are opposed to the introduction by the City Council, my employer, of charges for motorcycle parking in Westminster. The campaign express their opposition in various ways, one of which is the targeting of individual Council employees, including myself. Pursuant to that strategy the campaign has, over the last twelve months, published numerous defamatory allegations about me, including allegations of fraud, forgery, and gross misconduct in public office. The allegations are published on the forum of the website, and in newsletters distributed to campaign supporters which are also published on the site. The allegations are wholly without any foundation. I have reluctantly concluded that I should bring proceedings for defamation with a view to preventing the continued publication of these libels, and to vindicate my reputation, as otherwise the publication of them will continue and escalate.
Below this email is a letter before action which I have sent to Mr Djanogly and other individuals on the campaign’s Committee setting out the allegations which have been made and some further background. The proceedings will be commenced on or before 15 February.
No doubt you have been unaware of the content of the website, and of course I would prefer not to include you as a defendant in the action. However from a legal point of view, and as you may be aware given the nature of your business, you are a secondary publisher of the defamatory allegations (that is to say a person responsible for making the defamatory comments available to third parties). The Defamation Act 1996 provides you with a defence to an action for defamation in those circumstances, provided that
(i) you were not aware of the defamatory content, or of anything from which it would be apparent to you that any content of the site was unlawful; and
(ii) once you become aware of defamatory content, or of anything from which it would be apparent to you that any content of the site was unlawful, you act quickly to remove the information or disable access to it.
I attach a link to an article which summarises the law in this area, in my view accurately. http://www.scl.org/site.aspx?i=ed1027
In the circumstances, I would be grateful for your urgent confirmation that you intend to take action to remove the defamatory allegations from the site, or disable access to them. .
If you require any further information or would like to discuss the matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt
Peter Large
T: 02076412711
F: 02076413325
1 comment
Peter Martin
01/02/2011 at 23:43 (UTC 1)
If this happens again you need to get the complainant to identify each and every instance of alleged defamation before you remove it from the site. Shutting down the site was too drastic. The complainant has to show you actual defamation rather than suggest that there ‘may’ be some there, as there might equally be none. If he cannot point out precisely where these are then it would be unreasonable in law to expect a host to trawl through their site looking for it. In order to prove you are a secondary publisher he needs to prove you were aware of a defamation not that there might be one somewhere.
It would presumably take some considerable time for this chap to go through your whole website detailing defamatory comments…